by Techniguy | Feb. 3, 2006

When President Bush said it will be the next president who will have to withdraw troops from Iraq, it scared the hell out of Hillary Clinton and other Democrat hopefuls. They are now demanding that Bush pull out of Iraq before the end of his term. This is a strong indication that they would be incapable of handling the War on Terror. Barack Obama said essentially the same thing, that Bush should remove troops from Iraq by Summer of 08. It's obvious that these liberals are scared to death that they may have to deal with the War in Iraq and the War on Terror, something that not a one of them are capable of dealing with.

Joe Biden, the latest Dem to join the candidate crowd, has offered a multipart plan that calls for Iraq to become federated states. The states would share oil revenue, but the country effectively would be divided into Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish enclaves.  Once the plan was implemented, Biden says, he would hope to get most U.S. troops out of the country in 18 months whether the war is still going on or not.

Well what do you know?  18 months would be August, 2008 and just in time for an election campaign issue and out of the way before January, 2009 when the new president takes office.  I would like to know how he plans to separate the Sunni and Shia who both inhabit the Baghdad area where all the violence is taking place.  There is not a single Democrat willing to face the prospect of having to deal with the war in Iraq.  But then again, there hasn't been a Democrat able to deal with a war since Harry Truman except JFK who avoided one by showing a strong American defense posture.

Mrs. Clinton tells us that "if I had known then what we know now, there never would have been a vote to go into Iraq and I never would have voted for this war." What is she referring to that we know now but didn't know in 2002? That WMD stockpiles wouldn't be found where we looked for them?  (Maybe they're in Syria and Lebanon, huh?) That Sunnis would be fighting with Shi'ites? That al Qaeda would be conducting operations in Iraq? That Iran would be conducting operations in Iraq? Or maybe it's that it is taking longer than she anticipated for the newly elected Iraqi government to develop and train a new Iraqi army and assume responsibility for the defense of their country.

Are any of these setbacks valid reasons not to have removed Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq? Do any of these issues mean that Saddam Hussein was less of a threat to the region or the western world? Was Hussein still not in violation of the 1991 ceasefire agreement? Was he still not guilty of shooting at our planes patrolling the no fly zone? Was he not still in violation of 17 UN resolutions which required him to account for and destroy his illegal weapons programs or face serious consequences? Was he not still deceiving and blocking UN inspectors from doing the job they were sent there to do? Was Saddam still not maintaining his WMD programs for reconstitution after the inspectors were out of his way? Just what is it that has seemingly changed Mrs. Clinton's mind about Operation Iraqi Freedom? Maybe she's just decided that the Iraqi people don't deserve freedom from the oppression of Saddam Hussein, his sadistic sons, his death squads, and his band of torturers.

Consider this: Clinton sees herself as the next president of the United States and as such she would have two choices if troops are still in Iraq. 1) She could withdraw them herself and take the blame for the carnage that follows. 2) She could attempt to play Commander in Chief and try to run the war herself, which she is completely incapable of doing. Under a Mrs. Clinton Administration there will be no war on terror or on anything else. Just like her husband, she will have nothing whatsoever to do with war no matter how much it is needed to defend the country.  How long would it take her to pull troops out of Afghanistan without getting Osama bin Ladden?  How could she possibly deal with the growing threat from Iran?

The thought of having to deal with war scares her to death and she expects it all to be over before she takes office. She wants to be president but without accepting all of the responsibility that goes with the job. The same can be said of Obama, Edwards, and the rest of them. The Democrat Party cannot afford to be held responsible for executing a war or their party will be split in two facing not only political defeat, but military defeat as well.  If she pulls out of Iraq and the region falls into chaos, she will be blamed for it and loose the support of most responsible Americans.  If she continues the war, she looses the support of the antiwar wing of her party and betrays the people who financed her campaign.  There is no way she can satisfy both factions in spite of her current efforts to do so.  She's sounding more like John Kerry everyday now with her flip-flopping and floundering, trying to sound united with two opposing groups.

All we hear from the Democrats and the liberal media today is: "The American people are against the war". This is how they interpret media polls but that's not necessarily what the polls say. The American Left is against the war and their slanted polls show that, but they don't speak for all Americans and probably not even most of them. We all want the war to end but with success, not withdrawal and surrender. When a polls shows that most Americans want the war to end and the Left interprets that as meaning that most Americans want the US to pull out of Iraq now, that is a lie. They tell the same lie when quoting polls taken in Iraq saying that most Iraqi's want the US to leave Iraq. What they don't say is that the same poll also says that Iraqi's want us out eventually, but not right now. They want us to stay until the conflicts are resolved.

I personally do not believe this is all just about Iraq or war in general. What today's 'George Soros bought and paid for' Democrats really want is world socialism under the governance of one world government such as the United Nations. The ultimate goal of Skull & Bones, UN, Illuminati global elitists, etc., to become the ruling force of the planet cannot become a reality as long as the United States continues to maintain military might and western influence over most of the world. Before socialist elite can take over with the UN as the "World Government", they first have to destroy US influence in the world. Then they can step in as the world's Super power.

Consider John Kerry's remarks at the annual Skull & Bones meeting in Davos... - I mean the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. When Kerry referred to the United States as "a sort of international pariah", this wasn't an accurate description of our country, it was more a case of wishful thinking. When America does become an international pariah, a social outcast from the world community, then the stage will be set for the global elitist socialists to fill the power vacuum that will result and to take over without resistance from Americans.

Another example of this is "Global Warming". This is not about our environment, it's about a political agenda to turn American industry back 60 years and destroy the American economy. American technology and industry is so far ahead of 90% of the world's countries that it's just not fair to others.  But more than that, it gives the US the power to resist a take over by the international socialists/Communists, global elite, Skull & Bones, NWO, or whatever you want to call them.  

What global elitists need is a level playing field where no one has the advantage and no one country is more powerful than the UN.  To that end, the strategy is to advance and strengthen 3rd world Islamic countries while weakening the United States.  We've seen this strategy played out time and again in recent UN resolutions, most notably in dealing with Israel and Hezbollah last summer.  With the Democrats tying the hands of our military and the Kyoto treaty destroying our economy, the objectives of the global elitists would be close at hand with the obstacles of the American economy and military out of the way.

America has never been more politically divided than it is right now. Do you ever ask yourself "why is that?". Our Constitution lays down the foundation for the country and outlines the freedom and liberties that America stands for. It also places limits on the power of Federal Government and how much it is allowed to control and interfere with American free enterprise.  Our Constitution is our guarantee against socialism and oppression as long as it is followed and respected by our Congress of lawmakers.  Socialism and oppression in Europe is why the founding fathers came to America and established the Constitution of the United States to protect against it.

Conservative Americans have been trying to preserve these guaranteed freedoms and liberties, while for the past few decades, liberals have been trampling all over them in their attempts to change the country from what it was intended to be in their move toward socialism.  Conservatives are compared to Nazis by the liberals for standing for a strong America with traditional American values and resisting the Left's attempts to change the country into the model of European socialism, an ideology that has never prospered or shown to be a success.  It has brought nothing but poverty to any country who has engaged in it.

Democrats no longer represent America as it was intended to be. Today they represent a socialist ideology and can't understand why everyone doesn't agree with them. Our Congress has disregarded and ignored the duties and responsibilities assigned it by the Constitution as well as the limits placed on it, and now believes that it is a ruling body that has the legal right to do whatever it thinks is best for the country (or their political party) without any limits or restrictions specified by the Constitution.  They create law after laws that infringe on guaranteed constitutional right of the people.  They no longer see America as a country ruled by the will of the people, but rather the will of the government.

Remember I said that conservatives want to preserve America while liberals want to change it.  In spite of liberal claims that Conservatives are trying to change America, they are not.  Every time legislation in Congress is fought over between Republicans and Democrats, Republican legislators give in to the left with compromises and allow our country to be dragged further to the left and away from it's founding principles. They would rather maintain the integrity of the club than the integrity of the country and the Constitution. What's missing in the Republican Party today is the backbone and testicles to stand up for our values, tradition, and culture.  That is the primary job of elected Conservatives.

If Republican leaders don't return to the Conservative roots of the Republican Party, they are going to allow our country to be dragged straight down the path of destruction.  Their concept of compromise to try to please everyone and gain votes isn't working, is pleasing no one, and is accomplishing nothing.  When will they understand that the only way they are going to realize the support and gain the respect of the majority of the voters is when they stop being centrists and return to promoting conservative values? 

If Republicans in Congress allow the Democrats to have their way and force President Bush to prematurely withdraw from Iraq, the results will be devastating, not only for the Middle East, but for the US as well. This will assure that our next president will likely be Hillary Clinton who will attempt to reestablish the peace loving Clinton era administration in a time of world war, leaving our country vulnerable to attack and destruction by Fundamentalist Islam, and resulting in rule and domination by the global elitists of the United Nations which will be in charge of our National Defense.  Now isn't that a nightmare?

On the other hand, as long as Bush stays the course toward a free and stable Iraq, and shows substantial progress before the next election, voters are not likely to trust the security of our country and the stability of the Middle East to the remnants of the "peace at any cost" hippy leftovers from the Clinton era.  The same people who refused repeatedly to respond to Islamic attacks on our people and property, and who failed to stop them from destroying the World Trade towers when they had the chance on as many as 10 different occasions.

Mrs. Clinton has stated that "If I were president, I never would have started this war".  Notice how the media has been echoing the idea that "Bush started this war"?  Bush didn't start this war, Osama bin Ladden and Saddam Hussein did and now Iran is keeping it going.  People tend to forget that Saddam Hussein started this war in Iraq when he invaded Kuwait in 1990.  We let him off the hook with his acceptance of conditions for a ceasefire, not an end to the war.  That ceasefire lasted for 12 years as Saddam continually violated the agreement.  In 2003 it came time to hold him accountable and the war resumed, not only to put an end to the deceptions, but also because Saddam was becoming an even greater threat to the region and the west.  George W. Bush didn't start this war anymore than Hillary Clinton did. But Bush didn't run from it either, the way the Clintons did.

The Dems are running scared that they will have to deal with a world that is not so peaceful as it was when Bill Clinton was in office.  They want you to think that if only we elect them, we will return to those peaceful days, but in reality, they know better.  Now they are trying to force President Bush to tie up all loose ends so that they can come into office with a clean slate and not have to worry about war.  It just doesn't work that way.  We didn't choose this war and we have little control over how long it will last before the Islamic terrorists are defeated.  Democrats need to realize that this enemy is real, not some creation of the Bush Administration.

But if the Democrat controlled Congress has it's way over the next two years, they're going to have another problem to deal with, one of the economy that will be headed for a nose dive unless the Republicans in Congress fight like hell to protect it.  Dems are so dependent on their ignorant and uneducated poor for votes that they don't care about working with the people who provide them with jobs and income.  Their desire to redistribute the wealth will kill off those jobs and drive small business into bankruptcy along with the small business owners who the Dems love to call "the rich". 

Our next president may just be a Democrat but it's not going to be the gravy train job that Hillary Clinton is expecting as long as Bush stands up to them and does the right thing for the defense of our country.  If Dems want the job, they're going to have to accept it as it is and with all the responsibility that comes with it.  That won't set well with a party who doesn't believe in personal responsibility but when everything begins to fall apart, just watch them try to blame Bush for it.

  Site Meter

PLEASE do not use Techniguy's Newsletter email addresses in group mailing lists.
You may post Techniguy's Newsletters to groups ,blogs, and forward them to others on your mailing list. To Subscribe or Unsubscribe go to:

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only.